“Good writing is lean writing.”
For decades, Richard J. Blood drilled this mantra into the minds of his students in his notoriously grueling Reporting and Writing 1 class at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.
The renown trainer of journalists (and minter of many a Pulitzer winner) understood and relayed again and again that to achieve clarity in writing, we must “omit needless words.”
That is how William Strunk, the teacher of famed essayist and notable grammarian E.B. White put it for his students. Here is Strunk’s elaboration as quoted by White in The Elements of Style (3rd edition 1979):
Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.
Legal writing expert Bryan Garner picks up on this advice in The Winning Brief (3d edition 2014). Here’s his explanation for why we should “slash unnecessary words,” as he advises:
When you use fewer words to express an idea, you enhance your writing’s speed, clarity, and impact. Conversely, when you use more words than necessary, you make the writing slower, less clear, and less emphatic.
Stated differently, by using less words to make your point, you write more effectively and persuasively.
So always be on the lookout for words and phrases to cut, such as the fact that.
Here is a short list of some other phrases elimination of which will go far in reducing word clutter:
Prepositional phrases starting with the word “of”
Reduce wordiness by looking for unnecessary prepositional phrases to cut, especially those beginning with of, a frequent generator of pointless word sprawl. You can see this when you compare, say, the phrase in the event of with the word if. Both convey the same meaning but the simpler if is briefer and thus preferable. In The Winning Brief (3d ed. 2014), Garner points out that the circuit court’s principal office says in five words what the principal office of the clerk of the court of appeals says in 11. “However innocuous it may appear, the word of is, in anything other than small doses, among the surest indicators of flabby writing,” he says in Dictionary of Legal Usage (3d ed. 2011.)
Here are a couple more illustrations from The Winning Brief of this point:
Before: In this case, there is substantial risk that the current collection arrangement with Woolverton will be deemed a violation of the FDCPA. Many courts have found that the use of another party’s letterhead, without actual participation by that party in the collection of the debt, is a deceptive practice in violation of Sections 1692e and 1692j, subjecting both the creditor and the flat-rater to liability. [67 words: 10 prepositions]
After: The current collection arrangement with Woolverton may well be found to violate the Act. Many courts have found that using another party’s letterhead, without that party’s actually helping to collect the debt, is a deceptive practice that violates §§ 1692e and 1692j, subjecting both the creditor and the flat-rater to liability. [52 words 5 prepositions]
Before: The lack of relevance of each of the categories of documents identified in the Subpoena is addressed below. [18 words 5 prepositions]
After: As shown below, no document category that the subpoena identifies concerns the issues here. [14 words: no prepositions]
There is/there are
There is or there are is a “filler phrase,” as Garner puts it, that is okay to use sparingly when talking about the existence of something, as in There is good reason for this rule. At least, there is nothing grammatically wrong with that sentence. But most of the time you want to strike through this phrase, as it generally results in meaningless word clutter and represents a missed opportunity to use a strong, or at least more interesting, verb, to describe action.
For example, compare the sentence, There are three reasons why the Court should overrule that case with the sentence, The Court should overrule that case for three reasons—as Garner suggests in The Winning Brief.
Which is stronger and more compelling? The second, of course.
Likewise, note the unwieldiness of the sentence, To date, there have been no such third-party actions in the Hunt County suit, compared to the tightness of the sentence, To date, no third-party actions have arisen in the Hunt County suit (another comparison offered by Garner in The Winning Brief.)
And doesn’t the sentence, The Court should overrule that case for three reasons pack more punch than There are three reasons why the Court should overrule that case? (another of Garner’s comparisons).
Throat clearing phrases such as It is important to note that
Don’t back into your sentences by starting them out with a throat-clearing phrase such as it is important to note that. First of all, these words are unnecessary. If it was not important, then why would you mention it. Presumably, you would not ask the reader to direct their attention to an unimportant matter. Second of all, by adding needless clutter, you are diluting your point. Check out this illustration from The Winning Brief of the benefit of slashing these kinds of phrases:
Not this: It should be noted that a vast majority of the value of the sale proceeds came from the Historical Society’s collection of European paintings and decorative arts—the maintenance of which was contributing very little to the study of the history of New York.
After: The sale proceeds came mostly from the Historical Society’s collection of European paintings and decorative arts; maintaining these contributed little to the study of New York history.
Other examples of frequently used throat-clearers include in my considered opinion, may I respectfully suggest that, it may be remarked that, it should not be forgotten that, it is important to bear in mind that, and consideration should be given to. Stamp all of these out.
Here are a couple additional sentence comparisons from The Winning Brief that illustrate the benefit of doing so:
Not this: It is respectfully submitted that genuine issues of material fact remain such that defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be denied.
But this: Because genuine issues of material fact remain, this Court should deny Taylor’s motion for summary judgment.
Not this: It has been held that a merger clause stating that the writing contains the entire contract does not prevent a showing that the contract is void due to fraud.
But this: A merger clause stating that the writing contains the entire contract does not prevent a showing that the contract is void by fraud.
